How does the story of Adam and Eve compatible with science?

[Aupmanyav]

I would highly recommend reading this entire essay. I think it will answer your question. Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance – Religion Online

This is what I term as 'Sabda jaala' like the one Buddha referred to 'Indra jaala'. I am a minimalist. I want answers to be short and clear. If it is long, it is suspect. Even relativity and Quantum Mechanics can be described without wasting words (Check Wikipedia).

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You did not answer my question. What in Bible can be taken as truth? Why metaphors and symbolism? Why not say what one means in clear, plain language? See, how these fake stories, have created may-hem in the world, put one man against the other?

Winner questions

 

[Windwalker]

This is what I term as 'Sabda jaala' like the one Buddha referred to 'Indra jaala'. I am a minimalist. I want answers to be short and clear. If it is long, it is suspect. Even relativity and Quantum Mechanics can be described without wasting words (Check Wikipedia).

Do you mean to say that if something is abstract and complex and difficult or even not possible to put into easily understood words, it is suspect and should be considered irrelevant? Are you saying that reason and thoughts and ideas are the true measure of what is real? Only that which the mind can grasp should be considered truth or have value?

 

[Windwalker]

Winner questions

I did answer his question. Metaphors are the answer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the error is in that people interpret. I don't think it is good. People should let the Bible explain what it means, without adding own ideas in it. But, that is not an error in the Bible, it is error that people make.

Any reading of a text requires interpretation. If someone thinks they can read a text without interpreting, they aren't being honest with themselves.

 

[CG Didymus]

It could have come from an old myth of an ancient people. In that case that would be one side of the story. The Prophets then, have taken the myth, and modified it, added to it, and created symbolic meanings.

Well, the Baha'i position seems to be that things like the Creation story and the resurrection of Jesus can't be literally true, therefore they must be symbolic. All I'm saying is that several thousand years ago, those things were believed true. For believers, even today, they are taken as being true. Just imagine back then.

So, I don't believe the "true" meaning was meant to be symbolic. I think the stories were told and meant to be believed as being literally true. Like how God parted the seas to allow the Hebrews to cross, and then closed on the Egyptian army and drowned them. If people knew from the start, they were being told a fictional, symbolic story, then I don't think it would have had the same impact.

 

[nPeace]

From my reading it says they were created from clay.

Well it certainly wasn't from thin air.
I just wanted to see if you read that they were created out of thin air. Thanks.
Did your translation say clay, or dust of the ground?... not that that cannot be clay. Just wondering.

But since I am a Baha'i, I believe in Baha'i interpretation of the Bible. If I was not a Bahai, then I would have thought it is saying literally God created Adam from Clay, and then Eve from a part of Adam.

I understand. Reading it without religious influence, you would see it as it is, but taking what someone gives you, you accept their belief.
Did the one giving you that teaching, use the Bible to show you that their interpretation is worth acceptance, or did you believe, because, you just believe them to be a God send?

I know, if we trust that we are being guided by a teacher, or teachers, used by God, it can affect how we look at the text, when given an interpretation from them.
At the same time, I'm thinking that we might view the text as we understand it reads, if no other text gives clarity on it.
That way, we would be showing that we are using the Bible... in my opinion.

My mind went to David Koresh, and I was thinking how much different it could have turned out for his followers, if those people had read the Bible for themselves.
I believe prayer would have helped, since the Bible is not a few pages long, and it could take quite some time to understand it.

It's easy to be misled though, being that we are thrust into a world filled with wicked men and imposters.
We need to be really careful.

Then that wouldn't be compatible with Science.q

It's not compatible with beliefs in science, but my view that these beliefs are falsely called science, which is shared by millions - scientists included, won't change the prevailing view.

I would say though that it's not accurate to say, it's not compatible with science, since science does not say this is impossible.
Scientists are still trying to work out how the inflation epoch was possible, but it's called science.
The detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is unknown. The basic inflationary paradigm is accepted by most physicists, as a number of inflation model predictions have been confirmed by observation; however, a substantial minority of scientists dissent from this position. The hypothetical field thought to be responsible for inflation is called the inflaton.
The inflaton field is a hypothetical scalar field which is conjectured to have driven cosmic inflation in the very early universe.

Also, there are many many explanations with obvious problems, but they call it science.
So while we may not understand the process going into making man from the dust of the earth, and breathing the breath of life into him, it does not mean it is unscientific.
They are still trying to figure out how evolution happens, but they call it science.

But since the Bahai scriptures says this is a symbolic story, then I don't take it literally.

How are you able to take it symbolic?
Can you give me the symbolism from Genesis 1, and 2, please.

 

[Apostle John]

SubZone is correct. God set up Adam and Eve to fail. If you disagree then you're calling God a failure because the face value reading of the story is that God wanted them to obey, and they didn't. Wow, God couldn't create beings capable of basic obedience? Why put the tree of knowledge in easy access? Why send the serpent to tempt them if you REALLY wanted them to obey?

Of course humanity was fallen and bacame sinful, and what does God do as a solution? He floods the planet killing babies and innocent people and animals. Did it fix sin? No way, sin was back with Noah getting drunk and, well you know. So sin was back, and God decided to fix it again, this time raping a woman so she had a baby boy that would grow up to be executed so God the Father could absolve the sins of mankind. Gee whiz, God had to arrange a death to make that happen? Did it fix anything? How many Christians are actually honorable and earn respect? Not enough. Massive failure by God.

Disagreement with atheist misinterpretation of the Bible is natural and normal to me, especially the hysterical nonsense coming from religious atheists.

I’m with the few that “put out his hand and take from the tree of life” gaining entrance to heaven- the Christians of today in other words. Atheists go down to hell with the father of lies Satan.

The Liar- Stephen Fry the movie, a semi-autobiography is apparently ready to show, that’ll be why you/‘subZone’ keep the ‘liar’ theme going. I won’t watch it having read the plot on Wikipedia.

Professor Donald Cornwallis Treadway Trefusis is an eye catching name though. It reminded me of a physics Professor called Treadgold I once worked for who was Christian. He asked me what I thought of Scripture on a flight from Rome to Manchester (if a Christian is ever lucky enough to hear God’s voice repeatedly say “go back to Manchester”, as I have, it means household linen, heaven). I was an atheist before and had never read the Bible but said it was written to control people.

I look forward to walking on the street of pure gold in the New Jerusalem, catching up with that Professor again.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I did answer his question. Metaphors are the answer.

Yes, I gave winner to you.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Well it certainly wasn't from thin air.
I just wanted to see if you read that they were created out of thin air. Thanks.
Did your translation say clay, or dust of the ground?... not that that cannot be clay. Just wondering.


I understand. Reading it without religious influence, you would see it as it is, but taking what someone gives you, you accept their belief.
Did the one giving you that teaching, use the Bible to show you that their interpretation is worth acceptance, or did you believe, because, you just believe them to be a God send?

I know, if we trust that we are being guided by a teacher, or teachers, used by God, it can affect how we look at the text, when given an interpretation from them.
At the same time, I'm thinking that we might view the text as we understand it reads, if no other text gives clarity on it.
That way, we would be showing that we are using the Bible... in my opinion.

My mind went to David Koresh, and I was thinking how much different it could have turned out for his followers, if those people had read the Bible for themselves.
I believe prayer would have helped, since the Bible is not a few pages long, and it could take quite some time to understand it.

It's easy to be misled though, being that we are thrust into a world filled with wicked men and imposters.
We need to be really careful.


It's not compatible with beliefs in science, but my view that these beliefs are falsely called science, which is shared by millions - scientists included, won't change the prevailing view.

I would say though that it's not accurate to say, it's not compatible with science, since science does not say this is impossible.
Scientists are still trying to work out how the inflation epoch was possible, but it's called science.
The detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is unknown. The basic inflationary paradigm is accepted by most physicists, as a number of inflation model predictions have been confirmed by observation; however, a substantial minority of scientists dissent from this position. The hypothetical field thought to be responsible for inflation is called the inflaton.
The inflaton field is a hypothetical scalar field which is conjectured to have driven cosmic inflation in the very early universe.

Also, there are many many explanations with obvious problems, but they call it science.
So while we may not understand the process going into making man from the dust of the earth, and breathing the breath of life into him, it does not mean it is unscientific.
They are still trying to figure out how evolution happens, but they call it science.


How are you able to take it symbolic?
Can you give me the symbolism from Genesis 1, and 2, please.

Yes, here is the symbolism in the story of Adam, Eve, and the Serpent explained in Bahai Writings:

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 122-126

reference.bahai.org

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Well, the Baha'i position seems to be that things like the Creation story and the resurrection of Jesus can't be literally true, therefore they must be symbolic. All I'm saying is that several thousand years ago, those things were believed true. For believers, even today, they are taken as being true. Just imagine back then.

So, I don't believe the "true" meaning was meant to be symbolic. I think the stories were told and meant to be believed as being literally true. Like how God parted the seas to allow the Hebrews to cross, and then closed on the Egyptian army and drowned them. If people knew from the start, they were being told a fictional, symbolic story, then I don't think it would have had the same impact.

But I would consider that, in the Bible, both in Jewish Bible, and NT, there are several passages that gives us hints that most part of the Book intentionally is written in a way that could not be easily understood.
For example consider why Jesus spoke in Parables often? What did He say about that? Why Jesus said He was speaking figuratively? Why in Revelations it says the Book is sealed? Why in Torah, God says He speaks in riddles, or dark sayings? Why in Torah Isaiah and Daniel said the Book is sealed till end of time? Why, Daniel had visions of goat, or sheep with crowns, and then He interpreted them symbolicly? Why in the story of Joseph, the man saw dream of Seven fat and skinny cows, and it meant something else when it was fulfilled?
Why in the Quran verse 3:7 says, some of the verses are symbolic, and no one knows their interpretation except God? Why in the Quran says, God says, He speaks Metaphors, and by the Metaphors He misguides many?

I see consistency in the view that the Holy Books are not like stories that kids read and enjoy. When a story book is written for kids, then it means what it says. But Books of God? There is a hidden, mysterious meanings in them to be discovered.

 

[nPeace]

Why can't it just be the creation myth of an ancient people? I doubt very highly that a symbolic story about a symbolic man and woman that listened to a talking serpent and ate a forbidden fruit that had magical powers would have had much of an impact on the people. But a supposedly true story about a God that can curse and punish those that disobey him, now that has some power to it.

If some parts were symbolic, while others literal, that would have been more understandable to a people who understood the proper use of symbolism.

 

[nPeace]

How is the story of Jesus’ physical resurrection compatible with science? It isn’t. Apples and oranges.

I see your point.
I have heard scientists talk about resurrecting the dead. In fact, people are put on ice, with this prospect in mind.

 

[nPeace]

It is your background (samskaras), prejudice and your own weakness. You see the problem but do not accept it.

Right back at you mate.

 

[CG Didymus]

But I would consider that, in the Bible, both in Jewish Bible, and NT, there are several passages that gives us hints that most part of the Book intentionally is written in a way that could not be easily understood.
For example consider why Jesus spoke in Parables often? What did He say about that? Why Jesus said He was speaking figuratively? Why in Revelations it says the Book is sealed? Why in Torah, God says He speaks in riddles, or dark sayings? Why in Torah Isaiah and Daniel said the Book is sealed till end of time? Why, Daniel had visions of goat, or sheep with crowns, and then He interpreted them symbolicly? Why in the story of Joseph, the man saw dream of Seven fat and skinny cows, and it meant something else when it was fulfilled?
Why in the Quran verse 3:7 says, some of the verses are symbolic, and no one knows their interpretation except God? Why in the Quran says, God says, He speaks Metaphors, and by the Metaphors He misguides many?

I see consistency in the view that the Holy Books are not like stories that kids read and enjoy. When a story book is written for kids, then it means what it says. But Books of God? There is a hidden, mysterious meanings in them to be discovered.

Because with the story of Adam and Eve and the resurrection, the parting of the seas, David and Goliath etc, they are told as if they are historical events... not visions, not parables, and not symbolic. For me, still, the easiest explanation is that they are myth.

The Adam and Eve story continues straight into the continuing story that leads to Noah, Abraham and Joseph. All told as if those things were real, historical events. I have absolutely no problem if you tell me it's all fiction... just stories made up by an ancient people and filled with supernatural things supposedly done by their God.

However, for Baha'is, the NT and the Hebrew Bible can't be made up mythical fiction. It still has to somehow by from God. So, Baha'is make it symbolically true. Fine for Baha'is, but I don't see how Baha'is can make some things symbolic, like the resurrection, when the gospels don't give any indication that they are going from talking about the things that happened to them and to Jesus to suddenly, after the crucifixion, they go into a symbolic story about Jesus coming back to life.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, here is the symbolism in the story of Adam, Eve, and the Serpent explained in Bahai Writings:

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 122-126

reference.bahai.org

An explanation I did not see... If Adam is the spirit of Adam, and Eve is His soul, what is the symbolism for Adam having sexual intercourse with Eve, and bearing children?

 

[nPeace]

Because with the story of Adam and Eve and the resurrection, the parting of the seas, David and Goliath etc, they are told as if they are historical events... not visions, not parables, and not symbolic. For me, still, the easiest explanation is that they are myth.

The Adam and Eve story continues straight into the continuing story that leads to Noah, Abraham and Joseph. All told as if those things were real, historical events. I have absolutely no problem if you tell me it's all fiction... just stories made up by an ancient people and filled with supernatural things supposedly done by their God.

However, for Baha'is, the NT and the Hebrew Bible can't be made up mythical fiction. It still has to somehow by from God. So, Baha'is make it symbolically true. Fine for Baha'is, but I don't see how Baha'is can make some things symbolic, like the resurrection, when the gospels don't give any indication that they are going from talking about the things that happened to them and to Jesus to suddenly, after the crucifixion, they go into a symbolic story about Jesus coming back to life.

Yeah. The allegorical position is crippled really. Calling the entire thing myth, and putting it down after a good read, sound more reasonable... for the unbeliever - that is the non-Christian.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

An explanation I did not see... If Adam is the spirit of Adam, and Eve is His soul, what is the symbolism for Adam having sexual intercourse with Eve, and bearing children?

Yes, it is said Adam had children.

"Adam is the spirit of Adam, and Eve is His soul; the tree is the human world, and the serpent is that attachment to this world which constitutes sin, and which has infected the descendants of Adam."


It could be that there was really an Eve as a wife of Adam. I am not sure though. But the scriptures has also given a symbolic meaning to it as well.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Because with the story of Adam and Eve and the resurrection, the parting of the seas, David and Goliath etc, they are told as if they are historical events... not visions, not parables, and not symbolic. For me, still, the easiest explanation is that they are myth.

The Adam and Eve story continues straight into the continuing story that leads to Noah, Abraham and Joseph. All told as if those things were real, historical events. I have absolutely no problem if you tell me it's all fiction... just stories made up by an ancient people and filled with supernatural things supposedly done by their God.

However, for Baha'is, the NT and the Hebrew Bible can't be made up mythical fiction. It still has to somehow by from God. So, Baha'is make it symbolically true. Fine for Baha'is, but I don't see how Baha'is can make some things symbolic, like the resurrection, when the gospels don't give any indication that they are going from talking about the things that happened to them and to Jesus to suddenly, after the crucifixion, they go into a symbolic story about Jesus coming back to life.

Because in Bahai view, there was a reason that these stories were written symbolicly without actually telling they are symbolic. It was intentional not to say it explicitly that all those stories are symbolic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah. The allegorical position is crippled really. Calling the entire thing myth, and putting it down after a good read, sound more reasonable... for the unbeliever - that is the non-Christian.

Why just for the non-Christian? Christians that make the error of reading that myth literally never fully understand it. If one does treat it as the literal truth then God is incompetent. God is evil. Worse yet for Christians, that God is a liar. Why would any Christians want to seriously paint their God that way?